[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAC5umygnUybkmut9NogAxRD14kQp-NAq5=m14QRVng8pYEAhHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 00:50:14 +0900
From: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: use memblock_alloc_range() or memblock_alloc_base()
2014-08-28 5:53 GMT+09:00 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 23:56:02 +0900 Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Replace memblock_find_in_range() and memblock_reserve() with
>> memblock_alloc_range() or memblock_alloc_base().
>
> Please spend a little more time preparing the changelogs?
OK, I'll be careful next time.
> Why are we making this change? Because memblock_alloc_range() is
> equivalent to memblock_find_in_range()+memblock_reserve() and it's just
> a cleanup? Or is there some deeper functional reason?
This is just a cleanup and I thought there are no functional change.
But I've just realized that the conversion to memblock_alloc_base() in
this patch changes the behaviour in the error case.
Because memblock_alloc_base calls panic if it can't allocate.
So please drop this patch from -mm tree for now.
> Does memblock_find_in_range() need to exist? Can we convert all
> callers to memblock_alloc_range()?
There are two callsites where we can't simply convert with
memblock_alloc_range (arch/s390/kernel/setup.c, arch/x86/mm/init.c).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists